Spouses Hernandez v.

Spouses Dolor
G.R. No. 160286. July 30, 2004

FACTS:
Lorenzo Menard Boyet Dolor, Jr. was driving an owner-type jeepney owned by her
mother, Margarita, towards Anilao, Batangas. As he was traversing the road, his vehicle
collided with a passenger jeepney driven by petitioner Juan Gonzales and owned by his co-
petitioner Francisco Hernandez. Boyet and his passenger died. Passengers also on board
the owner-type jeep, which was totally wrecked, suffered physical injuries. The collision
also damaged the passenger jeepney of Francisco Hernandez and caused physical injuries
to its passengers. Respondents commenced an action for damages alleging that driver Juan
Gonzales was guilty of negligence and lack of care and that the Hernandez spouses were
guilty of negligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. Petitioners
countered that the proximate cause of the death and injuries sustained by the passengers of
both vehicles was the recklessness of Boyet who was driving in a zigzagging manner under
the influence of alcohol. Petitioners also alleged that Gonzales was not the driver-employee
of the Hernandez spouses as the former only leased the jeepney on a daily basis. Hernandez
spouses further claimed that even if an employer-employee relationship is found to exist
between them, they cannot be held liable because as employers they exercised due care in
the selection and supervision of their employee. The trial court rendered a decision in favor
of respondents. CA affirmed with modifications. Hence the present petition.

ISSUE:
W/N Hernandez spouses are solidarily liable with Juan Gonzales, although it is of
record that they were not in the passenger jeepney when the accident occurred.

HELD:
YES. They are still answerable under several provisions of the Civil Code namely
Article 2180 and Article 2176. While the above provisions do not expressly provide for the
solidary liability, they should be read in consonance with Article 2180 – one can be liable
for the acts or omission of another whom he is responsible for, meaning that an employer is
accountable for the actions of his employees. Article 2194 categorically states that
responsibility of two or more persons who are liablefor quasi-delict is solidary. The
Hernandez spouses maintained that Julian Gonzales is not their employee because the
latter pays them daily for the use of the jeepney. They argued that they are practicing a
lease agreement using the “boundary system”. SC held that there exists an employer-
employee relationship because by agreeing with spouses Hernandez, there would be a
violation of the Public Service Law and the riding public is placed at the mercy of reckless
and irresponsible drivers because most drivers are in no position to pay for damages when
accidents occur.